I'd also like to take this opportunity to invite Reddit to take part in the Climate Reality Project's 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report. This is a live internet broadcast, intended to unite people around the world in demanding action to address the climate crisis. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, climate change deniers continue to stand in the way of meaningful solutions and the reality-based community cannot afford to stay silent any longer.

Please share this link and encourage others to tune in and participate during The Dirty Weather Report; people across the globe are already joining our efforts, and we need your help!

It will play a role, but probably a limited role. I think the waste issue can probably be solved, and Fukushima notwithstanding, the safety of operation issue an pobably be solved. But the cost is absurdly high and still rising. Moreover, if we model it as the path forward, and encourage developing countries to head down that road, we would create a massive security challenge. During the eight years I worked in the White House, every single nuclear proliferation threat we had to deal with was connected to a reactor program. The technologies are different, but if you are the dictator of a country that has a reactor program and a fuel cycle, you can secretly orde the same people to enrich the fuel to weapons-grade over time and build bombs. Bad outcome.
New reactor designs hold promise but they are all at least 15 years away.
Meanwhile, solar pv is riding a "Moore's Law Jr." costdown curve. Wind and efficiency too, though not as steep. We need to get to scale on renewables quickly and make the transition.

That was the problem a decade ago, however it has been solved. Hastelloy-N for the pipes and a more careful regulation of the salt mixtures brings the corrosion down to negligible levels.

In a nutshell, the only barriers to thorium-based power are politics, red tape, and the inertia of the current nuclear power industry. There are no engineering barriers left. NONE. We just need to find the will to build them.

I wish I could link you to a proper reference here, but I can only go off my memory. I've seen nuclear scientists on Reddit before answering questions about Thorium reactor technology, and stating in no unclear terms that it is not currently feasible. I don't recall the exact reasons why, I vaguely recall something like fuel degradation and/or expense of fuel material. Perhaps an internet wizard can find this info, or a true expert can chime in?

Bottom line, there are no showstoppers. There is also no way to make further progress without building them - we're done with the drawing board. These need to be built, operated, and studied so we can identify the optimal design elements and identify what has been overlooked so far. Luckily there are several companies building pilots right now.

Because this is reddit where we cure cancer twice a week, and 99% of the people reading this aren't interested in doing the reading necessary to see the difference between thorium and tomorrow's miracle cancer cure.

There's a few really good peer reviewed review articles published in very reputable journals regarding the technological hurdles associated with the construction of a thorium reactor. Try google scholar and you should find them.

Even if he was a fairly average president, I doubt he would have thoroughly trashed our federal budget the way Bush did. A sizable portion of the magnitude of the debt problems in Europe can be traced back to the 2008 crash in the states which was caused by Bush policies.

If he remotely followed through with what he believes, our country would have not only not abandoned clean energy research, we'd be a good number of years closer to large scale clean energy deployment.

I'm not saying everything would be roses right now, but we'd certainly be better off on the whole.

"I wonder what the most intelligent thing ever said was that started with the word 'dude.' 'Dude, these are isotopes.' 'Dude, we removed your kidney. You're gonna be fine.' 'Dude, I am so stoked to win this Nobel Prize. I just wanna thank Kevin, and Turtle, and all my homies.'" -Demetri Martin

There are reactor designs right now that do not enable a nuclear weapons program. Different fuel, different processes, different end products. I feel that if we were to invest heavily into safe nuclear reactors, there would be less need for the largest CO2 producer: coal power plants. There is no such thing as "clean coal". Even an electric car ("clean solution") gets its power from a polluting technology.

He is, first of all, a terrific friend. He really is an amazing guy. As good at directing as at acting, btw. Check out his performance in Spielberg's Lincoln. Incredible! I hope he gets another Oscar for it. I'm biased, but I sure think he deserves it.

There are at least 15 deeply researched separate lines of evidence that all confirm man-made global warming. They are all consistent, each with the others. Every National Academy of Science on the planet agrees with the consensus. The Academies describe the evidence as "indisputable". Every professional scientific society in every field related to climate science and earth science also agree. And 97-98% of climate scientists worldwide most actively publishing also agree. Animals and plants also agree -- in that they are moving their ranges by latitude and altitude to find climate niches similar to the ones in which they evolved.
Even if you leave climate science completely out of it and just measure extreme temperatures, the statistical record of global temperatures shows that three-standard deviation events have increased from 0.25% of the time (from 1951-1980) to 10% of the time now. There is as strong a consensus as you will find in science, with the possible exception of the existence of gravity.

I've personally studied global warming and global warming denial more than most people you'll ever meet. I've argued with countless people about global warming, and I consider myself an armchair expert on the matter; take that as you will. But after EVERYTHING I've read, after EVERY SINGLE DENIER ARGUMENT I've heard and given equal chance to... I've only come out of it even MORE sure that AGW is real and presents serious, serious problems. Not only that, but forecasts/predictions from climatologists just a few years ago were TOO CONSERVATIVE. Meaning, the reality isn't tamer than the scientists said it would be, it's WILDER. I haven't found ONE SINGLE denier argument that holds any weight. And if you trace global warming denial back to its source, almost EVERY TIME you will find fossil fuel money and right-wing think-tanks behind it. It's utterly corrupt and abhorrent.

The science absolutely backs up the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming just as much as it backs up the Theories of Evolution or Gravity.

If you want to know more about global warming denial and how it's a complete load of shit, PLEASE PLEASE check these out:

Do you mean regardless of human inhabitants, or Earth's inhabitants? Because I was under the impression that life dramatically changed the atmosphere of Earth several times in the past in all sorts of ways (leading to the oxygen/carbon merry go round that we have now).

There is a lot of uncertainty in the models that are trying to predict what will happen in the future. The reason for this is due to inherent feedbacks caused by climate change (increased cloud formation and melting ice caps being the two major ones). As such, a lot of people point to this uncertainty and use it to say that the climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. This is a bad and fallacious reason to not believe in global warming, but it is one a lot of people fall back on.

There is a book titled the Economics of Public Issues that we have been studying in one of my classes at my University. The book is titled "The Economics of Public Issues" (17th edition) by Miller, Benjamin, & North. It has an excellenrt chapter discussing this and is titled Greenhouse Economics. Basically it says humans are playing a role, but no one is sure on the precise magnitude of human impact. Rough estimates are about 1/3, (Combustion of fossil fuels creating CO2, and livestock and landfills producing methane)(Some amount of the temperature increases in the period from 1975-2000 has been attributed to incresed levels of solar acvtivity and solar flares, still debate on how much this has contributed) The ocean also holds nearly 50X as much CO2 than our atmosphere.
Problem with regulation is that developing countries, such as China and India(the two most populous countries in the world), would be exempt from the emissions regulations. This would prove to put extremely high costs on developed nations such as the US with very little if any positive affect.
Until there is a global intitiative, with enforcement power(coercive power is the key), environmental regulations will only be very expensive thoughtful measures with no outcomes.

Edit: I don't have a clue why anyone would downvote this. antiscian asked for a fact, and only unsupported claims were provided. We're talking science here; If you don't back up your claim with data, either your own or what has been published, it should be treated as suspect.

On the flipside: if you had the chance to make "An Inconvenient Truth" again, is there anything you would reconsider putting in your movie (e.g. weak points that have become a strawman by those who deny global warming)?

As someone who was in office during another time of obstructionism and fierce party-line divides, what advice would you give President Obama to accomplish his objectives during his second term? What advice would you give to us, the public, in dealing with the harsh realities of the partisan divide?

This question was asked by correctmeplease in the initial thread and has the most upvotes in it.

Guys I think we should cool it with the, "You should've won!!!" comments. I think he's heard them enough and probably doesn't need to be reminded every comment. I'm not trying to start a fight...it's just a suggestion.

That's actually what is happening with this AMA. Gore is taking the time to give informed, fairly detailed answers. He just quoted Mark Twain. He even made a compromise on the energy question and accepted that we can't go too heavily into renewables too soon.

That's exactly why he lost. Half of the electorate would get a headache thinking about this. They'd call him indecisive on energy for having a balanced plan instead of just saying "Drill baby, drill!" They don't want to hear to hear logic and an actual plan. They think Mark Twain is Shania's lesser known brother.

Our national information infrastructure is no longer competitive. We need to invest in more bandwidth, easier access, and the rapid transition of our democratic institutions to the internet. And we need to protect the freedom of the internet against corporate control by legacy businesses that see it as a threat, and against the obscene invasions of privacy and threats to security from government and corporations alike.
Please think about this: almost everytime there has been a choice between privacy/security on the one hand and convenience on the other, the mass of folks have chosen convenience. I for one believe the "stalker economy" on the internet is undemocratic and anti- American.
Are folks at the gag point on this yet? Thanks, btw, to the Reddit community for fighting off Sopa and PIPA. Keep your powder dry; more big struggles ahead.

Please please please, this. I know it's probably not a headache he'd want, with all the campaigning, but if climate change is going to be a growing concern, we need as soon as possible a president who knows how to respond.

Obama can't be VP after serving 2 full terms as it presents opportunity for him to serve greater than the maximum of 8 years. The measure is specifically in place to prevent a loophole where someone who had served as President can continue to serve and override the limit by signing on as "VP" while his front runner resigns on Day 1 in the office.

And how exactly would a president influence climate change legislature in congress? If it never gets to his desk, he can never sign it. And that requires congress to draft, pass through committee, debate, vote for, (in both houses) legislation to counteract CO2 emissions. Such legislation has been in commitee, and is always blocked by democrats internal bickering and total opposition to save the planet by Republicans. Having Gore as the head of the executive doesn't make congress write good legislation.

Not gonna lie, answers like this make me wish you were still in politics, though I know you now do work that's just as valuable (if not more so).

Thank you for doing this AMA! On the off chance you see this response, I have a question: how often, if at all, have you spoken to Obama/his administration? I'd imagine they keep Bill Clinton at least somewhat "in the loop," and I'm wondering if that extends to you as well. (I sure hope it would!)

Speaking of, how often do you keep in contact with Bill Clinton? Do you guys ever just together, knock a few brews back, and reminisce about the 90s?

Some years ago you were asked if you thought the 2000 election was stolen. You said: "There may come a time when I speak on that, but it's not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do. In our system, there's no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution."

I'm excited to join everyone at Reddit today. I've been looking forward to it. I hope we can talk about the climate crisis and 24 Hours of Reality: the Dirty Weather Report.
On the first question,
I haven't ruled out addressing that at some point in my life, but no, I don't believe now is the time to do it, if that time ever comes.

He didn't handle it well, but I kind of don't blame him. He came into an AMA where the first question was basically accusing him of statutory rape, and the atmosphere for the rest of the AMA was very negative.

Also I kind of get a sense that he was pretty clueless about Reddit and how AMAs worked. I'd be willing to bet he had an assistant or something tell him to do what's called an AMA on a site called Reddit, where he can answer questions and promote his new movie. And maybe wasn't given much more info. So he jumps on here to promote his movie and pretty much gets ambushed because he has no idea what he's getting into. That's my take on the situation anyway.

Are you kidding? 90% of the star power and 10% of the responsibility, plus you get to do all the things that are too fun for a president to engage in. In the debates, who had to pretend extremists had legitimate ideas and carefully disagree? Obama. Who got to laugh in their face and be declared the winner for doing it? Biden.

He didn't ignore the question, he answered it. Most AMAs would have simply ignored the question, Ramparting would be responding while blatantly not answering. Instead we got a polite response, with a caveat that he's not ready to talk about it and it's not really what he's doing this AMA for.

This is literally the best case scenario

EDIT: I got gilded? Seriously? Thanks Reddit-bro, see you in /r/lounge :D

That's the popular perception, but the truth is a little more depressing. Even at the time the Constitution was framed, it was possible to actually count ballots. It was almost easier and more reliable, since there were so few ballots back then. The electoral college was put in place for the same reason that the Senate was not elected by the people yet: the framers of the Constitution wanted to keep power out of the hands of the people. They wanted the political elites to be able to overrule the public if they ever made a "bad choice."

Exactly. And I think it's fair to leave it at that too because the Supreme Court decision is still a very contentious (and distracting) one and climate change deserves every ounce of attention it can get right now.

we need electoral reform. The electoral college gives politicians incentive to pander to swing states during their campaign rather than individual voters. There is no democratic equality when someones vote influences an election more than another.

Hell was raised by the populace 12 years ago, but not much (not enough). The general consensus was, "Well, it's not really fair, but it's how it is." There was more outrage over the hanging chads. But if Obama had won without the popular vote last week, hell would've been raised by the GOP, FOX News, and all the other money-rich heavy-hitters who might have the weight to get it changed.

As bad as this sounds, I kind of wish that Obama had won the electoral vote and not the popular vote so republicans could see how messed up it is. All four candidates that lost the popular vote yet won the election were republicans.

It's not so much that it's a negative consequence as it is just changing one set of problems for another.

The entire two party system needs to be reformed. Why? You have a First Past the Post system in the US, and it's a really, really poor system. Rather than me explaining the whole thing, here's a great non-partisan video that explains it very well. There are more in the series that explain alternative systems and they're worth your time to watch if you are interested in real electoral reform.

Mr. Gore,
Thanks for doing an AMA. I’m writing this because a little more than 12 years ago, I met you and it changed my life. I was 7 years old at the time and my father was a photojournalist traveling with you. He had been on the road with your team for weeks and I had not seen him in person in quite some time. I sent him a letter with a picture of a telephone, pager, and computer with a short note underneath reading “These are the only ways I can talk to you. I want to talk man to man!”

A few days later, my Dad received the letter while on Air Force II. Your daughter Karenna happened to see it and she told my Dad that she wanted you to see it. A bit later at a photo-op, you approached my Dad and asked to see the letter.

That night at an off-the-record party, you and my Dad were talking over a beer and the letter came up again. My Dad then asked “If I call him right now, would you get on the phone?” All of the sudden, my Dad calls the house and tells me Al Gore wants to talk to me. Being 7 years old, I was not nearly aware of the magnitude of the situation, and treated it much like any other phone conversation. I don’t remember most of the conversation, but I do remember you telling me that I was a "very bright young man" and had “great handwriting for a second grader.”

A few days later, when we went to greet my Dad at Andrew’s Air Force Base, you came up to me and said “Are you Mr. Man to Man?” You introduced yourself to the rest of my family and we chatted for a bit before you left. From that day on, my Dad said that every time you guys saw each other you would ask him “How’s Mr. Man?”

So while I do not have question for you Mr. Gore, I just wanted to take my first opportunity since then to say “thank you” for that. You didn’t go out of your way to talk to a 7 year old on the phone as a political act or to win over voters, you did it because you are a genuinely incredible person. To this day, whenever anyone tries to talk down or make fun of Al Gore, I tell them my story and they are blown away. So once again, Mr. Gore, thank you. You are the man.

Nigerian here, shot my uncle who was king and donated $100 million to the Bush campaign. Now that i've server my manslaughter sentence (great lawyer), I just need $5,000 to travel to the U.S and withdraw the money. Federal laws prevents the Bush campaign from taking the money, and I am the only person who knows about it. If you could send me $5,000, i'll share the money with you 50/50. So $5,000 for $50 million anyone?

My dad also had you call me as a little kid. I'm Matt Corrigan, son of Jack Corrigan, you called to tell me what a great job he did for you in the recount. I'm 21 now and still a Democrat! Thanks Mr. Gore!

Not sure what I enjoyed most about this. Your letter, your story about meeting Al Gore, Al Gore's response to this comment, or the picture with your (presumably) sister leaning against Al Gore's leg looking like a boss.

Do you need proof? I just created a new account for this because I knew I'd be showing it to family members if it got answered and I've posted things with my other account that I'd rather they not see.

For all those people saying "OMG Idiocracy!!", please stop. That is just a movie. If you actually enjoyed said movie, do the writer the credit of actually understanding his point: Idiocracy was a satire of the current situation in America, not a prophecy of the future.

As I said below regarding the Idiocracy scenario:

That's not actually going to happen, though.
Intelligence selectively bred out of humanity would take FAR longer than more immediate issues such as the possibility of over population killing us all.

And to the person that suggested killing myself, at no point did I say that humanity is evil and needs to be wiped out. There's just too many humans on one planet, and that over population is the cause of many of the significant problems.

Until we start colonizing other worlds and relieving the burden here, the only sustainable solution is gradual population reduction due to self-regulation.

Here's an idea: free vasectomies for all volunteers. I'd sign up tomorrow.

EDIT #2:

I think some of the people here are interpreting my comment as the sort of over the top, eugenics-like draconian population controls implemented by the government in various dystopian movies and such.

That's not what I'm referring to. The question was what an average person could choose to do on their own that would actually have an impact, and I mentioned making a personal decision.

This decision is right for me, it may not work for you. But even if someone chooses to have children, they could still have a positive impact on the over population issue by having 1 or 2 children instead of a gaggle.

If you choose to buy a hybrid car and you drive that car for a year, you will prevent about 1 ton of greenhouse emissions from being released. This statistic does not take into account the greenhouse gas emissions released during the construction of the car (the parts being created and shipped to locations, the assembly of the vehicle, the vehicle being transported to a dealership, etc.).
If you change to a vegan diet (no dairy, no meat) and do your best to buy locally, you will prevent 1.5 tons of greenhouse gas emissions from being released per year.
-New Scientist
There are many more reasons I can give to argue for a vegan diet as proactive and effective environmental lifestyle shift, but the one listed above impacted me the most.

Obama is a weak on environmental concerns. Obama is primarily concerned with social justice, while Gore is focused with environmental justice. The problem is, you can't even have a base society without an environment. Likewise, you can't really solve the environmental crises with a destroyed social state. Nevertheless, I think Obama is off and I'm sure that'd explain the silence.

I'm more interested in Family Guy. In the time travel episode when Peter doesn't get with Lois the rest of the timeline changes and Gore becomes president. The world they depict is a wonderful utopia. Seeing that has to put a smile on Al's face and a spring in his step.

In 2013, when the earths rotation came to a halt. The world called on the one man who could make a difference. When it happened again, the world called on him once more, and no one saw it coming, Three. More. Times.

Now six years removed from the release of an Inconvenient Truth, how do you feel that America's relationship with the environment has changed compared to how it was in 2005, and do you think the green initiatives taken by the Obama administration have been enough or are further steps needed?

This is a good question, but in all seriousness, these measures are so far from being enough. Way, way more is needed. Here in Europe we are doing a lot more but its still not enough. And America is decades behind us on this front.

That's because half our people are scientifically-illiterate ignorant Neanderthals who believe that one person disagreeing with a hundred should get equal consideration and is equally likely to be correct. Sorry, world.